Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.
It's a sad day when the Bill of Rights is modded "Troll".
What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese
Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese
Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States
As I sit here and read all these comments about how great it is that we live in a free country and how terrible it is that the Chinese don't, I am shocked by your comment. The primary tool of the Chinese government is the control of the media. As long as they control the media, the rest doesn't matter. They can even give their people the absolute freedom of speech. It won't matter because the only information that the people receive will be good news about the people in power. How can they say anything negative when they don't know of the government doing anything negative. Sure, the party leaders don't read every news cast that every reporter reads, but if a reporter says something they don't like, they are whipped back in line with a quickness.
Fortunately, here we have the Bill Of Rights. It guarantees your right to say whatever you want. Just as importantly, it guarantees the right of Fox News to say whatever they want. It's sad that that right now, Fox News is the only network that is critical of the Obama administration. In other words, Fox News is the only network that is DOING ITS JOB! I find it sad that so many like yourself will openly mock the only network that separates the American media from the Chinese.
Unfortunately, in Obamas' case, words speak louder than actions.
Kinda what I was thinking. When he said:
because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.
Of course, that doesn't apply if you criticize HIS government or try to hold it accountable. Ask Fox News.
Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.
I didn't mean to say that Google is evil for stealing this guy's name. I was merely stating that this could become a PR nightmare if it becomes a big enough deal.
Imagine the spin that could be placed here: Some poor computer programmer invented a programming language with the hope of making the world a better place and here comes the big bad evil corporation Google and steals the name of this language. When the poor chap brings it up, the door is slammed on his face and Google uses the name anyway. This poor programmer can't do anything about it as since he couldn't afford a lawyer to TM the name to begin with, there is no way he will stand a chance against Google's titanic team of lawyers and deep evil pockets.
It's actually pretty funny Google itself didn't see this coming. Results in Google for go programming language are about the existing Go! language and the main developers book about it.
In this case Google should really change the name since its been used in an existing programming language for years. But maybe they are:
"We recently became aware of the Go! issue and are now looking into the matter further," a company spokesperson said in an e-mail.
I don't know what they need to look into. There are only two real aspects to look at here. First, from a technical standpoint, it could confuse people want to learn Google's Go and end up learning the other Go. From a legal standpoint, if the guy didn't trademark the name, who cares? He doesn't really have a case. But it does kind of fly in the face of the "Don't be evil" slogan.
If they want to be nice, they could just rename it to something like Go++ or Go2.
For sure the prime source of inspiration and functions for Windows comes from Apple's work! And maybe now and then from somewhere else. So I'm more inclined to believe the interviewed employee than the higher-up managers refuting it. Of course they can not admit they simply copy Apple, after all.
I installed Windows7 and to me it looks the bastard child of KDE4 and XP. I didn't see a whole lot of Mac in there.
To me, Mac is that little parabolic taskbar thingie (doc?) with the hopping icons on the bottom that is not really a task bar, disks that are icons directly on the desktop (as opposed to "My Computer") and the menu bar on the top that confuses most normal people because it changes with whichever application is active. None of that is in 7.
So....He makes a good argument against domestic drilling, which you agree with, but you're against it anyway because other people you dislike are for the same thing for other reasons that you consider bogus?
No, I'm against his argument because there are better options. I even proposed one, but I admit I wasn't very clear in doing so. I said:
So much so that they will not consider the idea of taxing domestic oil or using the profits from oil on federal land to investing in green research that could potentially get us off oil for good!
We created a nuclear bomb and sent a man to the moon using 1940's and 50's technology. How were we able to do such monumental things? MONEY! We threw gobs and gobs of money at the technical hurdles and pushed for innovative technological solutions that we would not have been able to otherwise with no guarantee of success.
Oil can give us that money to do it again. There is an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR alone. It is estimated to cost about $30/barrel to extract. At $70/barrel, that's $40/barrel profit, or $400 billion that goes nowhere but the government coffers because ANWR is on national land. Of course, that's just ANWR.
Now, of course, there is no guarantee that oil will remain at $70/barrel. It may go higher, it may go lower. Higher is not a problem, but lower can make it all a waste. This can be fixed by placing a tariff on imported oil to make the price at least $70/barrel. This guarantees the profit from government owned oil wells and even makes MORE $$ if the price drops below $70 because of the tax placed on imported oil. It also protects investors who are nervous about drilling because there is no guarantee as to what the price of domestic oil will sell for. Everyone wants to cap oil prices. This never works and leads to shortages. But if you put a floor on oil prices, it insures production and exploration.
Anyway, you take that $$$ and dump into green energy research projects and production and you significantly increase the chances that we will have a green solution before the oil runs out.
Of course, this is not the only option. We could other things like pay off the national debt or feed the world. My whole point was the enviro's won't even consider such suggestions. All they can say is "NO!" even when their reasons for doing so have been disproved or solved.
Sitting on the oil as a strategic reserve for national security purposes is not a bad idea, but in order to do so, we end up paying billions of $$$'s to people who don't like us very much and will gladly use our own money against us. This tends negate the whole national security argument.
Even if the purposes are economic instead of security, it makes little sense to ruin our economy now on the chance that it may help in the future.
So, until we have a viable alternative, why not use our domestic resources?
From a strategic standpoint, wouldn't it be better to wait till we've exhausted the oil supplies from everyone else before we start using our own?
Absolutely, that makes perfect sense. But that logic is not the reason we aren't drilling domestically. The excuse given is almost always environmental issues. We can't drill in ANWR because of the porcupine caribou. We can't drill off the coast of California because of the potential for a spill that has the potential to ruin beaches potentially during a tourist season. We can't drill ANYWHERE because burning oil release CO2.
Still, I don't see a whole lot of American Environmentalists protesting in Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil or any other country that is actively drilling new wells. Personally, I think the REAL reason is that liberals are afraid that someone (evil company or fat cat oil man) will make money off of oil. So much so that they will not consider the idea of taxing domestic oil or using the profits from oil on federal land to investing in green research that could potentially get us off oil for good!
The problem is that burning it blows carbon-oxygen atoms out tailpipes, where they pollute, and ultimately cause atmospheric damage. You can't tell me all of that soot is a good thing.
This will continue until a reasonable alternative is found. Until then, we are using oil. Importing does not make us use less. Producing it domestically will not make us use more. No matter what, we will continue to use oil. So, until we have a viable alternative, why not use our domestic resources?
You use "The Daily Show" as an example? Really? A show on Comedy Central? If that's the case, may I point you to THIS video of John Stewart.
No, they sure don't: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgeable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest [thinkprogress.org]
From your article:
The results about Fox News echo findings of previous surveys. In 2003, University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims — that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Strange. There WERE WMD's in Iraq, just not the numbers we were expecting to find.
Also, there was about the same international support for the second gulf war as the first. (34 countries sent troops in '92. 33 in '03)
(I can't speak for people thinking Iraq was involved in 9-11)
So, seeing that 66% these assumptions that are used to judge the "knowledge" of viewers are false, it does not bode well for the rest of the survey. Also, the survey does not consider that people that watch the "Daily Show" probably get their information from other sources as well. I would be interested in knowing what column they placed someone who watches Fox News, The Daily Show, reads the local paper and subscribes to news magazines. You have to consider that someone who enjoys the political humor of "The Daily Show" is more likely to also watch other news shows more than someone who watches "Dancing with the Stars".
But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.
Examples, please. Don't say that it's true and provide no evidence or you are being guilty of the exact same thing you are accusing Fox News of. In your first paragraph, you start a rumor. In your second you draw a conclusion based on the very same rumor.
There should be no misconception that the entire Fox News organization is a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch and the Republican party. They are "fair and balanced" only up to the point that it conflicts with these two entities. To paint a broad stroke, anyone who cannot see that is deluded.
You mean the same Rupert Murdoch who gave money to the Hillary Clinton campaign? And, again, NUMBERS DON'T LIE! Fair and Balanced means telling all sides of the story. Fox News does just that. So, you may not like the FACT that Fox is more "Fair and Balanced" than any other news network, but don't insult them and their viewers because they tell a side of the story that you don't want heard. It's kind of like book burning. When you see information you don't agree with, you feel you must destroy it.
The way I see it as Beck asking the questions that are not exactly PC, but everyone was thinking, and giving Rep. Ellison a chance to answer those questions in person and clear the air. It becomes pretty clear when you show the ENTIRE thing, and not just a single snippet. (BTW, isn't that what so many Beck haters accuse him of; taking things out of context?)
ELLISON: How you doing, Glenn? Glad to be here.
BECK: Thank you. I will tell you, may I -- may we have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table?
ELLISON: Go there.
BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There's no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don't need to -- need to prove my patriotic stripes.
BECK: I understand that. And I'm not asking you to. I'm wondering if you see that. You come from a district that is heavily immigrant with Somalians. And I think it's wonderful, honestly, I think it is really a good sign that you are a -- you could be an icon to show Europe, this is the way you integrate into a country. I think the Somalians coming out and voting is a very good thing. With that --
And I have watched his full-of-shit show, where he preaches dogmatic lies and words things in such a way that you wonder if he even likes America.
Example, please.
Hell, if you watch a straight week of his show, you'd honestly believe that he wants to send all of the liberals, all of the college educated, and all of the non-Republicans to little camps.
That's your opinion. I asked for examples.
His oratory style is terrifying, because it is only suited to satire and comedy.
Again, opinion. We need facts, not opinion.
You're fucknut insane if you believe otherwise, and since your name has been peppered all over this topic religiously defending Beck, I feel 100% confident in saying that.
And since you are the one that provides no FACTS and only insults, I can assume that you are truly "fucknut insane". You truly hate a man and attack him relentlessly to the point of making stuff up for reasons that not at all based on FACT, but opinions. Since you have no facts on which to base your opinions, you spout them as if they are fact, which just makes you hate more, which leads to more falsehoods, then more hatred, and the cycle grows to where you are now.
How about you read the conclusion? According to the article you're linking to CNN provided the most balanced coverage, not FOX. Or... did you screw up the link again? Or, do you just not know how to read?
Strange. The closest thing I can find to that is this quote:
CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.
This quote says CNN was more in line with the media average. It does not say it gave fair coverage.
So, if you can copy and paste the paragraph you found, I'd appreciate it. However, what I found in the numbers is this: On McCain: CNN was 61% negative, 13% positive Fox was 40% negative, 22% positive On Obama: CNN was 39% negative, 36% positive Fox was 40% negative, 25% positive
Strange, FoxNews was MORE favorable to Obama than McCain on the positive toned stories and exactly the same on the negative (40% on both). CNN gave 22% more negative coverage to McCain than Obama and nearly triple the positive coverage to Obama than it gave McCain.
Here is how the article put it:
That made Obama’s coverage on CNN less negative than on Fox and less positive than on MSNBC.
The tone of CNN’s coverage of McCain was also mainly negative. Stories about McCain were more than four to one negative (13% positive, 61% negative and 26% neutral.) That was very close to the media generally (14% positive, 57% negative and 29% neutral) and fell somewhere between its two competitors.
Like I said, numbers don't lie. It appears that you do since you can no longer claim ignorance.
Even the article itself labeled Beck as "barely true", whereas you call him a liar. Your own link goes against you.
Besides, I'll Van Jones himself saying, "I am a communist" over an article saying he is not based on some pro capitalist statements he has made. The quote, "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder --..." shows that he is at the very least an anti-capitalist. Well, that and the open admission that he is a communist and all.
Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.
I wasn't in the country for the last election, so I honestly don't know. Would you mind providing links to back your assertion that Fox's coverage was the most fair and balanced?
Considering as it is now, you haven't made any links. By not having any links, it makes me wonder why you would make up a story about fox being fair and balanced. What is it that you're hiding by not producing links to numbers that prove things are fair and balanced? I'm not saying that I don't believe your assertions, I just find it suspect that you don't try to back them up.
Sorry, I screwed up the HTML and the link turned into a quote. HERE is the link.
Well put. I don't agree with everything Beck says and there are times that he is truly wrong. You have pointed a couple out. Nice job.
Now, my beef is that Beck seems to bring up things that no one else (in the media) seems to care about. You have a "Green Jobs Czar" that has openly said he was a communist. Beck showed the video. But, so what. So what if the "Green Jobs Czar" is a communists? What can he do? He then showed the video of the same guy (Van Jones) saying that green jobs goes well beyond just "green jobs".
"[If] All we do is take out the dirty power system, the dirty power generation in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system. We don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how we're treating our other sister and other brothers' species, we don't deal with toxins, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have. You'll have solar powered bulldozers, solar powered buzz saws, and biofuel bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines and we'll still have a dead planet. This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system."
The "Green Jobs Czar" wanting to change the whole system? My big fear of government regulation of things is that they will use it to try to control me and take away my freedoms. Health care is a good example. Here is Van Jones saying that the government should use Global Warming as a way to control me. That scares me. If Glenn Beck had not started investigating Van Jones, no one would have ever known BECAUSE THE PRESS DOES NOT ASK THE QUESTIONS!
Then, of course, there is Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director. She said, "The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
Of course, no other media outlet reported on this. The only refutation that Beck received was that he took the quote out of context. HERE is a site that does just that. To prove the point, they showed the entire video of the relevant portions of her speech. They don't seem to notice the irony that the entire video they showed to prove that Beck took the quote out of context WAS FROM BECK'S SHOW!!!!
So, while you may not like Beck's delivery, pay attention to the content. I wrote Beck as crazy several years ago when he would say conspiracy stuff like, "The government wants to take over the financial sector" and "The government wants to control the auto manufacturers". Now-a-days I watch the occasional show (when I'm home at 5:00) and get scared to death. He's like Alex Jones, except Beck is right more times that not and HE ACTUALLY HAS THE VIDEO TO BACK UP WHAT HE IS SAYING!!!! Where Alex Jones says, "I've seen the documents", Beck shows you the video, and it not only scares the crap out of me what Beck says, but the fact that the press ignores it almost makes me want to build a bunker!
That's the his entire M.O., is it not? First, Beck accuses you of beating your wife (or some similar calumny)
No, Glenn Beck would show a police report from your battered wife saying that she was beaten. Then she would play an audio of you saying that you have been known to smack women around from time to time. Finally, he would show a video of you beating your wife and THEN ask you to deny it.
So while you IMPLY that Beck is making false accusations, if you ever bothered to watch the show, you'd know that be truly backs them up with honest to goodness video. Hell, you don't even have to watch the show. Just use Google and YouTube!
I read most of them, but let's skip to the "Pants on Fire" one The claim:
John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."
They say that Holdren never supported that position. You click on the link, and it takes you to THIS article. Here's an excerpt:
We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."
In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.
Of course, the book lists this as an example of a step that could be taken, but, of course, it has some problems. What did authors think the problems would be?
"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."
Now, granted, the book does not endorse the idea, but does bring it up as a CONSTITUTIONAL option, should population control become an important enough need.
And saying that this is a valid option and it is CONSTITUTIONAL, I think it's fair to say, "John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." Although, I will admit that "if the need becomes serious enough" should be added to the end of that.
But Beck has repeatedly said Jones is a communist. Present tense. Although we could not find a comment in which Jones explicitly said why he is no longer one, we found ample evidence that he now believes capitalism is the best force for the social change he is seeking. So there's truth to Beck's claim in that Jones was a communist, but it's apparent he isn't any longer, as Beck suggests. So we find the claim Barely True.
So, they have video of Van Jones saying he IS a communist, but can't find anything with him saying he is NOT. However, he has said some things that don't sound like a communist, so we don't think he is. Therefor, Beck is liar!
No, Glenn Beck is worse because he gets people to believe false things do to his orating "style". Making a false statement a question, repeating it several times, then slightly denying it, is extremely dishonest and anyone who makes a living off of doing so deserves to be berated.
Um. No. Glenn shows actual video of people saying "telling" things. See THIS video from Glenn Beck's show (about 4:15 in). Or maybe THIS video (2:13 in). Glenn doesn't use his own "oratory style". He lets these people do it for themselves. He then asks people to research it for themselves.
Then again, if you ever bothered to watch his show, you'd know this. Instead, you sit here on Slash and regurgitate things you've heard from other people who have never seen the show. Kinda what you are accusing Glenn of doing.
If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?
I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.
Glenn Beck shows actualvideo of people saying outrageous things and THEN asks them to respond. Sorry, but this website does not have a video of Glenn Beck killing a young girl. Until they get one, your comparison is not a fair one.
beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery.
Funny. The
numbers
show just the opposite. You can bitch and moan all you want, but numbers don't lie. So if the numbers don't lie and you are saying the opposite... what does that say about you?
Do you have something against a news network that actually gives those that you disagree with a fair shake?
(Granted, commentators like Hannity are NOT news. But as far as the actual NEWS goes, Fox NEWS was by fair the most "fair and balanced" of any network, at least in regards to the last election. Like I said, numbers don't lie.)
Slashdot Mirror
Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.
It's a sad day when the Bill of Rights is modded "Troll".
What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese
Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese
Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States
As I sit here and read all these comments about how great it is that we live in a free country and how terrible it is that the Chinese don't, I am shocked by your comment. The primary tool of the Chinese government is the control of the media. As long as they control the media, the rest doesn't matter. They can even give their people the absolute freedom of speech. It won't matter because the only information that the people receive will be good news about the people in power. How can they say anything negative when they don't know of the government doing anything negative. Sure, the party leaders don't read every news cast that every reporter reads, but if a reporter says something they don't like, they are whipped back in line with a quickness.
Fortunately, here we have the Bill Of Rights. It guarantees your right to say whatever you want. Just as importantly, it guarantees the right of Fox News to say whatever they want. It's sad that that right now, Fox News is the only network that is critical of the Obama administration. In other words, Fox News is the only network that is DOING ITS JOB! I find it sad that so many like yourself will openly mock the only network that separates the American media from the Chinese.
Unfortunately, in Obamas' case, words speak louder than actions.
Kinda what I was thinking. When he said:
because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.
Of course, that doesn't apply if you criticize HIS government or try to hold it accountable. Ask Fox News.
Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.
I didn't mean to say that Google is evil for stealing this guy's name. I was merely stating that this could become a PR nightmare if it becomes a big enough deal.
Imagine the spin that could be placed here:
Some poor computer programmer invented a programming language with the hope of making the world a better place and here comes the big bad evil corporation Google and steals the name of this language. When the poor chap brings it up, the door is slammed on his face and Google uses the name anyway. This poor programmer can't do anything about it as since he couldn't afford a lawyer to TM the name to begin with, there is no way he will stand a chance against Google's titanic team of lawyers and deep evil pockets.
It's actually pretty funny Google itself didn't see this coming. Results in Google for go programming language are about the existing Go! language and the main developers book about it.
In this case Google should really change the name since its been used in an existing programming language for years. But maybe they are:
"We recently became aware of the Go! issue and are now looking into the matter further," a company spokesperson said in an e-mail.
I don't know what they need to look into. There are only two real aspects to look at here. First, from a technical standpoint, it could confuse people want to learn Google's Go and end up learning the other Go. From a legal standpoint, if the guy didn't trademark the name, who cares? He doesn't really have a case. But it does kind of fly in the face of the "Don't be evil" slogan.
If they want to be nice, they could just rename it to something like Go++ or Go2.
For sure the prime source of inspiration and functions for Windows comes from Apple's work! And maybe now and then from somewhere else. So I'm more inclined to believe the interviewed employee than the higher-up managers refuting it. Of course they can not admit they simply copy Apple, after all.
I installed Windows7 and to me it looks the bastard child of KDE4 and XP. I didn't see a whole lot of Mac in there.
To me, Mac is that little parabolic taskbar thingie (doc?) with the hopping icons on the bottom that is not really a task bar, disks that are icons directly on the desktop (as opposed to "My Computer") and the menu bar on the top that confuses most normal people because it changes with whichever application is active. None of that is in 7.
So....He makes a good argument against domestic drilling, which you agree with, but you're against it anyway because other people you dislike are for the same thing for other reasons that you consider bogus?
No, I'm against his argument because there are better options. I even proposed one, but I admit I wasn't very clear in doing so. I said:
So much so that they will not consider the idea of taxing domestic oil or using the profits from oil on federal land to investing in green research that could potentially get us off oil for good!
We created a nuclear bomb and sent a man to the moon using 1940's and 50's technology. How were we able to do such monumental things? MONEY! We threw gobs and gobs of money at the technical hurdles and pushed for innovative technological solutions that we would not have been able to otherwise with no guarantee of success.
Oil can give us that money to do it again. There is an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR alone. It is estimated to cost about $30/barrel to extract. At $70/barrel, that's $40/barrel profit, or $400 billion that goes nowhere but the government coffers because ANWR is on national land. Of course, that's just ANWR.
Now, of course, there is no guarantee that oil will remain at $70/barrel. It may go higher, it may go lower. Higher is not a problem, but lower can make it all a waste. This can be fixed by placing a tariff on imported oil to make the price at least $70/barrel. This guarantees the profit from government owned oil wells and even makes MORE $$ if the price drops below $70 because of the tax placed on imported oil. It also protects investors who are nervous about drilling because there is no guarantee as to what the price of domestic oil will sell for. Everyone wants to cap oil prices. This never works and leads to shortages. But if you put a floor on oil prices, it insures production and exploration.
Anyway, you take that $$$ and dump into green energy research projects and production and you significantly increase the chances that we will have a green solution before the oil runs out.
Of course, this is not the only option. We could other things like pay off the national debt or feed the world. My whole point was the enviro's won't even consider such suggestions. All they can say is "NO!" even when their reasons for doing so have been disproved or solved.
Sitting on the oil as a strategic reserve for national security purposes is not a bad idea, but in order to do so, we end up paying billions of $$$'s to people who don't like us very much and will gladly use our own money against us. This tends negate the whole national security argument.
Even if the purposes are economic instead of security, it makes little sense to ruin our economy now on the chance that it may help in the future.
So, until we have a viable alternative, why not use our domestic resources?
From a strategic standpoint, wouldn't it be better to wait till we've exhausted the oil supplies from everyone else before we start using our own?
Absolutely, that makes perfect sense. But that logic is not the reason we aren't drilling domestically. The excuse given is almost always environmental issues. We can't drill in ANWR because of the porcupine caribou. We can't drill off the coast of California because of the potential for a spill that has the potential to ruin beaches potentially during a tourist season. We can't drill ANYWHERE because burning oil release CO2.
Still, I don't see a whole lot of American Environmentalists protesting in Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil or any other country that is actively drilling new wells. Personally, I think the REAL reason is that liberals are afraid that someone (evil company or fat cat oil man) will make money off of oil. So much so that they will not consider the idea of taxing domestic oil or using the profits from oil on federal land to investing in green research that could potentially get us off oil for good!
By the time that happens we won't have any money left to exploit them with and it will be the Saudi's pumping oil out of the Midwest.....
Actually, it will be the Chinese, but the same point applies.
The problem is that burning it blows carbon-oxygen atoms out tailpipes, where they pollute, and ultimately cause atmospheric damage. You can't tell me all of that soot is a good thing.
This will continue until a reasonable alternative is found. Until then, we are using oil. Importing does not make us use less. Producing it domestically will not make us use more. No matter what, we will continue to use oil. So, until we have a viable alternative, why not use our domestic resources?
You use "The Daily Show" as an example? Really? A show on Comedy Central? If that's the case, may I point you to THIS video of John Stewart.
No, they sure don't: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgeable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest [thinkprogress.org]
From your article:
The results about Fox News echo findings of previous surveys. In 2003, University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims — that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Strange. There WERE WMD's in Iraq, just not the numbers we were expecting to find.
Also, there was about the same international support for the second gulf war as the first. (34 countries sent troops in '92. 33 in '03)
(I can't speak for people thinking Iraq was involved in 9-11)
So, seeing that 66% these assumptions that are used to judge the "knowledge" of viewers are false, it does not bode well for the rest of the survey. Also, the survey does not consider that people that watch the "Daily Show" probably get their information from other sources as well. I would be interested in knowing what column they placed someone who watches Fox News, The Daily Show, reads the local paper and subscribes to news magazines. You have to consider that someone who enjoys the political humor of "The Daily Show" is more likely to also watch other news shows more than someone who watches "Dancing with the Stars".
But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.
Examples, please. Don't say that it's true and provide no evidence or you are being guilty of the exact same thing you are accusing Fox News of. In your first paragraph, you start a rumor. In your second you draw a conclusion based on the very same rumor.
There should be no misconception that the entire Fox News organization is a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch and the Republican party. They are "fair and balanced" only up to the point that it conflicts with these two entities. To paint a broad stroke, anyone who cannot see that is deluded.
You mean the same Rupert Murdoch who gave money to the Hillary Clinton campaign? And, again, NUMBERS DON'T LIE! Fair and Balanced means telling all sides of the story. Fox News does just that. So, you may not like the FACT that Fox is more "Fair and Balanced" than any other news network, but don't insult them and their viewers because they tell a side of the story that you don't want heard. It's kind of like book burning. When you see information you don't agree with, you feel you must destroy it.
The way I see it as Beck asking the questions that are not exactly PC, but everyone was thinking, and giving Rep. Ellison a chance to answer those questions in person and clear the air. It becomes pretty clear when you show the ENTIRE thing, and not just a single snippet. (BTW, isn't that what so many Beck haters accuse him of; taking things out of context?)
ELLISON: How you doing, Glenn? Glad to be here.
BECK: Thank you. I will tell you, may I -- may we have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table?
ELLISON: Go there.
BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There's no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don't need to -- need to prove my patriotic stripes.
BECK: I understand that. And I'm not asking you to. I'm wondering if you see that. You come from a district that is heavily immigrant with Somalians. And I think it's wonderful, honestly, I think it is really a good sign that you are a -- you could be an icon to show Europe, this is the way you integrate into a country. I think the Somalians coming out and voting is a very good thing. With that --
ELLISON: I'd agree with you.
And I have watched his full-of-shit show, where he preaches dogmatic lies and words things in such a way that you wonder if he even likes America.
Example, please.
Hell, if you watch a straight week of his show, you'd honestly believe that he wants to send all of the liberals, all of the college educated, and all of the non-Republicans to little camps.
That's your opinion. I asked for examples.
His oratory style is terrifying, because it is only suited to satire and comedy.
Again, opinion. We need facts, not opinion.
You're fucknut insane if you believe otherwise, and since your name has been peppered all over this topic religiously defending Beck, I feel 100% confident in saying that.
And since you are the one that provides no FACTS and only insults, I can assume that you are truly "fucknut insane". You truly hate a man and attack him relentlessly to the point of making stuff up for reasons that not at all based on FACT, but opinions. Since you have no facts on which to base your opinions, you spout them as if they are fact, which just makes you hate more, which leads to more falsehoods, then more hatred, and the cycle grows to where you are now.
How about you read the conclusion? According to the article you're linking to CNN provided the most balanced coverage, not FOX. Or... did you screw up the link again? Or, do you just not know how to read?
Strange. The closest thing I can find to that is this quote:
CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.
This quote says CNN was more in line with the media average. It does not say it gave fair coverage.
So, if you can copy and paste the paragraph you found, I'd appreciate it. However, what I found in the numbers is this:
On McCain:
CNN was 61% negative, 13% positive
Fox was 40% negative, 22% positive
On Obama:
CNN was 39% negative, 36% positive
Fox was 40% negative, 25% positive
Strange, FoxNews was MORE favorable to Obama than McCain on the positive toned stories and exactly the same on the negative (40% on both). CNN gave 22% more negative coverage to McCain than Obama and nearly triple the positive coverage to Obama than it gave McCain.
Here is how the article put it:
That made Obama’s coverage on CNN less negative than on Fox and less positive than on MSNBC.
The tone of CNN’s coverage of McCain was also mainly negative. Stories about McCain were more than four to one negative (13% positive, 61% negative and 26% neutral.) That was very close to the media generally (14% positive, 57% negative and 29% neutral) and fell somewhere between its two competitors.
Like I said, numbers don't lie. It appears that you do since you can no longer claim ignorance.
So, it sounds like my summary was spot on.
Even the article itself labeled Beck as "barely true", whereas you call him a liar. Your own link goes against you.
Besides, I'll Van Jones himself saying, "I am a communist" over an article saying he is not based on some pro capitalist statements he has made. The quote, "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- ..." shows that he is at the very least an anti-capitalist. Well, that and the open admission that he is a communist and all.
Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.
Here are the numbers:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1
They show that Fox was very balanced in the previous election.
Here is deeper analysis:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
AS for the commentators, when was the last time you saw a true conservative on Keith Olbermann's show? I've seen plenty of Liberals on O'Reilly's.
I wasn't in the country for the last election, so I honestly don't know. Would you mind providing links to back your assertion that Fox's coverage was the most fair and balanced?
Considering as it is now, you haven't made any links. By not having any links, it makes me wonder why you would make up a story about fox being fair and balanced. What is it that you're hiding by not producing links to numbers that prove things are fair and balanced? I'm not saying that I don't believe your assertions, I just find it suspect that you don't try to back them up.
Sorry, I screwed up the HTML and the link turned into a quote. HERE is the link.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1
(in case I screw it up again)
Well put. I don't agree with everything Beck says and there are times that he is truly wrong. You have pointed a couple out. Nice job.
Now, my beef is that Beck seems to bring up things that no one else (in the media) seems to care about. You have a "Green Jobs Czar" that has openly said he was a communist. Beck showed the video. But, so what. So what if the "Green Jobs Czar" is a communists? What can he do? He then showed the video of the same guy (Van Jones) saying that green jobs goes well beyond just "green jobs".
"[If] All we do is take out the dirty power system, the dirty power generation in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system. We don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how we're treating our other sister and other brothers' species, we don't deal with toxins, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have. You'll have solar powered bulldozers, solar powered buzz saws, and biofuel bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines and we'll still have a dead planet. This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system."
The "Green Jobs Czar" wanting to change the whole system? My big fear of government regulation of things is that they will use it to try to control me and take away my freedoms. Health care is a good example. Here is Van Jones saying that the government should use Global Warming as a way to control me. That scares me. If Glenn Beck had not started investigating Van Jones, no one would have ever known BECAUSE THE PRESS DOES NOT ASK THE QUESTIONS!
Then, of course, there is Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director. She said, "The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
Of course, no other media outlet reported on this. The only refutation that Beck received was that he took the quote out of context. HERE is a site that does just that. To prove the point, they showed the entire video of the relevant portions of her speech. They don't seem to notice the irony that the entire video they showed to prove that Beck took the quote out of context WAS FROM BECK'S SHOW!!!!
So, while you may not like Beck's delivery, pay attention to the content. I wrote Beck as crazy several years ago when he would say conspiracy stuff like, "The government wants to take over the financial sector" and "The government wants to control the auto manufacturers". Now-a-days I watch the occasional show (when I'm home at 5:00) and get scared to death. He's like Alex Jones, except Beck is right more times that not and HE ACTUALLY HAS THE VIDEO TO BACK UP WHAT HE IS SAYING!!!! Where Alex Jones says, "I've seen the documents",
Beck shows you the video, and it not only scares the crap out of me what Beck says, but the fact that the press ignores it almost makes me want to build a bunker!
That's the his entire M.O., is it not? First, Beck accuses you of beating your wife (or some similar calumny)
No, Glenn Beck would show a police report from your battered wife saying that she was beaten. Then she would play an audio of you saying that you have been known to smack women around from time to time. Finally, he would show a video of you beating your wife and THEN ask you to deny it.
Don't take my word for it. Watch it in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhFk7lH0LmE&feature=player_embedded#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP1-tGQzO_0&feature=player_embedded
So while you IMPLY that Beck is making false accusations, if you ever bothered to watch the show, you'd know that be truly backs them up with honest to goodness video. Hell, you don't even have to watch the show. Just use Google and YouTube!
There are much better examples, all on one handy page too! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/
I read most of them, but let's skip to the "Pants on Fire" one
The claim:
John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."
They say that Holdren never supported that position. You click on the link, and it takes you to THIS article. Here's an excerpt:
We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."
In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.
Of course, the book lists this as an example of a step that could be taken, but, of course, it has some problems. What did authors think the problems would be?
"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."
Now, granted, the book does not endorse the idea, but does bring it up as a CONSTITUTIONAL option, should population control become an important enough need.
And saying that this is a valid option and it is CONSTITUTIONAL, I think it's fair to say, "John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." Although, I will admit that "if the need becomes serious enough" should be added to the end of that.
Refuted.
From your link, final paragraph:
But Beck has repeatedly said Jones is a communist. Present tense. Although we could not find a comment in which Jones explicitly said why he is no longer one, we found ample evidence that he now believes capitalism is the best force for the social change he is seeking. So there's truth to Beck's claim in that Jones was a communist, but it's apparent he isn't any longer, as Beck suggests. So we find the claim Barely True.
So, they have video of Van Jones saying he IS a communist, but can't find anything with him saying he is NOT. However, he has said some things that don't sound like a communist, so we don't think he is. Therefor, Beck is liar!
Did I summarize it right?
No, Glenn Beck is worse because he gets people to believe false things do to his orating "style". Making a false statement a question, repeating it several times, then slightly denying it, is extremely dishonest and anyone who makes a living off of doing so deserves to be berated.
Um. No. Glenn shows actual video of people saying "telling" things. See THIS video from Glenn Beck's show (about 4:15 in). Or maybe THIS video (2:13 in). Glenn doesn't use his own "oratory style". He lets these people do it for themselves. He then asks people to research it for themselves.
Then again, if you ever bothered to watch his show, you'd know this. Instead, you sit here on Slash and regurgitate things you've heard from other people who have never seen the show. Kinda what you are accusing Glenn of doing.
If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?
I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.
Glenn Beck shows actual video of people saying outrageous things and THEN asks them to respond. Sorry, but this website does not have a video of Glenn Beck killing a young girl. Until they get one, your comparison is not a fair one.
beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery.
Funny. The
numbers
show just the opposite. You can bitch and moan all you want, but numbers don't lie. So if the numbers don't lie and you are saying the opposite... what does that say about you?
Do you have something against a news network that actually gives those that you disagree with a fair shake?
(Granted, commentators like Hannity are NOT news. But as far as the actual NEWS goes, Fox NEWS was by fair the most "fair and balanced" of any network, at least in regards to the last election. Like I said, numbers don't lie.)